407 
H89 


mm. 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


SPEECH 

OF 


MR.  CHAS.  HUDSON,  OF;  MASS., 

ON    THE 

THREE  MILLION  APPROPRIATION  BILL, 


Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  &.,  Feb.  13, 1847. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union  upon  the  Three 
Million  Appropriation  bill — 

MR.  HUDSON  said  : 

Mr.  CHAIRMAN:  No  man  can  contemplate  the  present  state  of  our  af 
fairs  without  perceiving  that  we  stand  in  an  unnatural  position.  A  conquering 
republic  is  a  political  solecism .  With  a  form  of  government  peculiarly  adapted 
to  peace,  we  find  ourselves  involved  in  war — a  w£r  of  aggression  and  con 
quest.  Not  satisfied  with  a  territory  extending  from  sea  to  sea,  and  almost 
from  the  rivers  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  we  are  at  this  moment  engaged  in 
the  unholy  work  of  dismembering  a  sister  republic.  This  position ,  I  repeat, 
is  an  unnatural  one.  I  shall  not  at  this  time  go  into  the  causes  of  this  war; 
I  have  attempted  that  on  a  former  occasion.  I  endeavored  at  that  time  to 
show  that  revolutionary  Texas  never  extended  beyond  the  immediate  valley 
of  the  Nueces;  that  the  whole  valley  of  the  Rio  Grande  west  of  the  desert 
was  in  possession  of  Mexico;  that  she  had  military  posts  there;  that  she  had 
custom  houses  east  of  the  river,  where  our  merchants  and  traders  had  long 
been  in  the  habit  of  paying  duties  to  the  Mexican  government;  that  Santa 
Fe  had  frequently  been  recognised  by  every  department  of  our  Government, 
as  a  Mexican  city,  and  that  we  had  a  consul  residing  there  at  the  commence 
ment  of  hostilities;  and  that  the  Executive,  knowing  these  facts,  invaded 
that  country,  threatened  Matamoras,  and,  by  blockading  the  Rio  Grande, 
cut  off  the  supplies  of  the  Mexican  army  stationed  at  Matamoras  on  the 
west  side  of  the  river,  and  thus  commenced  an  aggressive  war,  without  the 
authority  of  Congress.  These  positions  have  been  distinctly  taken,  by  my 
self  and  others,  on  this  floor,  in  the  very  face  of  the  President's  friends,  and 
they  have  been  challenged  to  refute  them.  And  what  have  they  done? 
Just  nothing.  Some  have  attempted  to  meet  these  positions  by  reference  to 
a  treaty  with  Santa  Anna,  which  never  had  an  existence;  otheis  by  refer 
ring  to  old  pretended  claims,  which,  if  they  ever  had  any  validity,  were 
long  since  relinquished  by  solemn  treaty.  The  only  real  attempt  at  argu 
ment  which  I  have  heard,  was  made  by  "the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr. 
STANTON.)  He  has  paraded  the  Texan  statutes  before  the  House  to  prove 
that  Texas  owned  the  country  west  to  the  Rio  Grande. 

Now,  sir,  I  admit  the  existence  of  these  statutes,  but  to  what  do  they 

J.  &  G.  S.  Gideon,  printers. 


amount?  They  were  passed  soon  after  the  Texan  revolution,  and  they 
profess  to  lay  out  the  whole  country  to  the  east  bank  of  that  river  into  coun 
ties.  But  Texas  never  was  in  possession  of  this  country,  and  these  coun 
ties  and  their  lines  were  only  imaginary.  They  were  merely  counties  in 
the  statute  book — a  system  of  paper  blockades ,  which  every  one  knows  to 
be  illegal,  and  of  no  binding  force.  The  gentlemen  from  Texas  have  at 
tempted  to  sustain  their  claim  by  the  same  argument;  but,  when  pressed, 
they  have  been  compelled  to  acknowledge  that  they  never  had  any  settle 
ments  in  the  valley  of  the  Rio  Grande.  One  of  the  gentlemen  has  said 
that  they  raised  a  company  of  rangers,  which  had  made  incursions  into  the 
country  west  of  the  desert,  and  in  this  way  they  established  their  jurisdic 
tion.  But  the  absurdity  of  such  a  position  is  manifest. 

[Mr.  PILLSBURY  here  rose  and  said,  that  Texas  had  maintained  perma 
nent  military  possession  as  far  west  as  she  had  any  settlements.] 

I  have  no  disposition  to  dispute  that;  she  may  have  held  possession  as  far 
as  she  had  any  population,  but  that  population  never  extended  west  of  Cor 
pus  Christi.  Texas  never  had  any  settlements  in  the  valley  of  the  Rio 
Grande . 

[Mr.  PILLSBURY.  The  same  is  true  of  Mexico.  Neither  Texas  nor 
Mexico  inhabited  the  country  on  the  east  side  of  that  river.] 

The  gentleman  is  right,  so  far  as  Texas  is  concerned;  but  Mexico  had 
settlements  there.  The  documents  submitted  by  the  President  himself 
prove  that  Mexico  had  military  posts  in  that  country;  that  she  had  a  custom 
house  at  Brasos  Santiago,  and  that  the  Mexicans  at  Point  Isabel  fired 
the  town,  and  fled  across  the  river,  at  the  approach  of  our  army.  These 
documents  prove  beyond  controversy  that  the  Texan  claim  was  invalid; 
that  Mexico  was  in  possession,  and  hence  that  the  march  of  our  army  to 
the  Rio  Grande  was  aggressive  on  our  part,  and  fully  justified  the  Mexicans 
in  resistance.  This  is  the  true  state  of  the  case,  and  I  defy  any  gentleman 
to  refute  it. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  pointed  to  the  war  of  1812,  and  to  the  sen 
tence  which  has  been  passed  upon  those  who  opposed  it.  I  admit  that  that 
war  was  declared  for  just  cause.  I  thought  so  then,  and  I  think  so  now; 
and  if  the  war  in  which  we  are  now  engaged  was  of  the  same  character,  it 
would  have  my  cordial  support.  I  am  not  among  those  who  believe  that  war 
is  never  justifiable.  Great  as  the  evil  is,  war  may  justly  be  resorted  to  in  self- 
defence  or  self-preservation.  But  why  point  to  the  war  of  1812?  If  the 
present  war  with  Mexico  can  be  justified  on  its  merits,  why  bring  the  war 
of  1812  to  its  aid  ?  The  fact  is,  that  the  flatterers  of  the  President,  who  at 
tempt  to  sustain  this  war,  are  conscious  of  their  inability  to  justify  it  on  its 
merits,  and  hence  they  attempt  to  associate  it  with  the  war  of  1812.  But 
what  was  that  war?  It  was  one  of  defence,  declared  to  protect  our  trade, 
to  defend  our  seamen,  and  sustain  our  character  as  a  free  people.  It  has 
justly  been  denominated,  the  second  war  of  independence. 

Mr.  Madison,  in  his  message  recommending  the  war  of  1812,  among 
other  things,  sets  forth  the  following  as  causes  of  the  war: 

"  British  cruisers  have  been  in  the  continued  practice  of  violating  the  American  flag  on  the 
great  highway  of  nations,  and  seizing  and  conveying  off  persons  sailing  under  it ;  not  in  the 
exercise  of  a  belligerent  right  founded  on  the  law  of  nations  against  an  enemy,  but  of  a  munici 
pal  prerogative  over  British  subjects.  The  practice  hence  is  so  far  from  affecting  British  sub 
jects  alone,  that,  under  the  pretext  of  searching  for  these,  thousands  of  American  citizens,  un 
der  the  safeguard  of  national  law,  and  of  their  national  flag,  have  been  torn  from  their  country, 
and  every  thing  dear  to  them  ;  have  been  dragged  on  board  ships  of  war  of  a  foreign  nation, 


and  exposed,  under  the  severities  of  their  discipline,  to  be  exiled  to  the  most  distant  and  deadly 
climes,  to  risk  their  lives  in  the  battles  of  their  oppressors,  and  to  be  the  melancholy  instruments  ' 
of  taking  away  those  of  their  own  brethren. 

"British  cruisers  have  been  in  the  practice  also  of  violating  the  rights  and  peace  of  our  coasts. 
They  hover  over  and  harass  our  entering  and  departing  commerce.  To  the  most  insulting  pre 
tensions  they  have  added  the  most  lawless  proceedings  in  our  very  harbors,  and  have  wantonly 
spilt  American  blood  within  the  sanctuary  of  our  territorial  jurisdiction. 

"  Under  pretended  blockades,  without  the  presence  of  an  adequate  force,  and  sometimes  with 
out  the  practicability  of  applying  one,  our  commerce  has  been  plundered  in  every  sea,  the  great 
staples  of  our  country  have  been  cut  off  from  their  legitimate  markets,  and  a  destructive  blow 
aimed  at  our  agricultural  and  maritime  interests. 

"  It  has  come  into  proof,  that,  at  the  very  moment  when  the  public  minister  (of  Great  Britain) 
was  holding  the  language  of  friendship,  and  inspiring  confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  a  negotiation 
with  which  he  was  charged,  a  secret  agent  of  his  government  was  employed  in  intrigues,  hav 
ing  for  their  object  a  subversion  of  our  Government,  and  a  dismemberment  of  our  happy 
Union." 

Mr.  Calhoun,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  which 
recommended  the  resort  to  arms  in  1812,  sets  forth  our  grievances  some 
what  in  detail.  After  giving  a  brief  account  of  the  aggressions  committed 
upon  our  commerce  hy  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  and  persisted  in 
for  a  series  of  years,  the  committee  say: 

"  We  must  now  proceed  to  other  wrongs,  which  have  been  still  more  severely  felt.  Among 
these  is  the  impressment  of  our  seamen,  a  practice  which  has  been  unceasingly  maintained  by 
Great  Britain  in  the  wars  to  which  she  has  been  a  party  since  our  Revolution.  Your  committee 
•cannot  convey  in  adequate  terms,  the  deep  sense  which  they  entertain  of  the  injustice  and  op 
pression  of  this  proceeding.  Under  the  pretext  of  impressing  British  seamen,  our  fellow-citi 
zens  are  seized  in  British  ports,  on  the  high  seas,  and  in  every  other  quarter  to  which  British 
power  extends ;  are  taken  on  board  British  men  of  war,  and  compelled  to  serve  there  as  British 
subjects.  In  this  mode  our  citizens  are  wantonly  snatched  from  their  country  and  their  fami 
lies,  deprived  of  their  liberty,  and  doomed  to  an  ignominious  and  slavish  bondage  ;  compelled 
to  fight  the  battles  of  a  foreign  country,  and  often  to  perish  in  them.  Our  flag  has  given  them 
210  protection  ;  it  has  been  unceasingly  violated,  and  our  vessels  exposed  to  danger  by  the  loss 
of  men  taken  from  them.  Your  committee  need  not  remark,  that,  while  this  practice  is  contin 
ued,  it  is  impossible  for  the  United  States  to  consider  themselves  an  independent  nation.  Its 
continuance  is  the  more  unjustifiable,  because  the  United  States  have  repeatedly  proposed  to  the 
British  government  an  arrangement  which  would  secure  to  it  the  control  of  its  ov/n  people. 

"  This  lawless  waste  of  our  trade,  and  equally  unlawful  impressment  of  our  seamen,  have 
been  much  aggravated  by  the  insults  and  indignities  attending  them.  Under  the  pretext  of 
blockading  the  harbors  of  France  and  her  allies,  British  squadrons  have  been  stationed  on  our 
own  coasts,  to  watch  and  annoy  our  trade.  To  give  effect  to  the  blockade  of  European  ports, 
the  ports  and  harbors  of  the'  United  States  have  been  blockaded.  In  executing  these  orders  of 
the  British  Government,  or  in  obeying  the  spirit  which  was  known  to  animate  it,  the  comman 
ders  of  these  squadrons  have  encroached  on  our  jurisdiction,  seized  our  vessels,  and  carried  into 
effect  impressments  within  our  limits,  and  done  other  acts  of  great  injustice,  violence,  and  op 
pression.  The  United  States  have  seen  with  mingled  indignation  and  surprise,  that  these  acts, 
instead  of  procuring  to  the  perpetrators  the  punishment  due  to  unauthorized  crimes,  have  not 
failed  to  recommend  them  to  the  favor  of  their  government. 

"Your  committee  would.be  much  gratified  if  they  could  close  here  the  detail  of  British  wrongs ; 
but  it  is  their  duty  to  recite  an  act  of  still  greater  malignity  than  any  of  those  which  have  been 
already  brought  to  your  view.  The  attempt  to  dismember  our  Union,  and  overthrow  our  ex 
cellent  Constitution,  by  a  secret  mission,  the  object  of  which  was  to  foment  discontent,  and  ex 
cite  insurrection  against  the  constituted  authorities  and  laws  of  the  nation,  as  lately  disclosed  by 
the  agent  employed  in  it,  affords  full  proof  that  there  is  no  bound  to  the  hostility  of  the  British 
government  towards  the  United  States  ;  no  act,  however  unjustifiable,  which  it  would  not  com 
mit  to  accomplish  their  ruin." 

These  were  among  the  causes  of  the  war  of  1812 ,  as  detailed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  .of 
Foreign  Affairs,  in  the  better  days  of  the  Republic,  when  reliance  could 
safely  be  placed  upon  the  statements  of  those  high  functionaries.  And 
how  will  those  causes  compare  with  the  true  causes  of  the  war  in  which  we 
are  now  engaged?  Jn  their  causes  nothing  can  be  more  dissimilar.  The 
one  was  declared  by  Congress,  the  other  commenced  by  the  President;  the 
former  was  declared  for  just  causes,  the  latter  for  no  adequate  cause  what- 


ever.  But  the  causes  of  the  two  wars  are  not  more  antagonistical  than  the 
objects  for  which  they  were  commenced  and  prosecuted.  The  war  of  1812 
was  a  war  of  defence;  the  present  war  is  one  of  aggression;  that  was  car 
ried  on  for  the  furtherance  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas,  this  for  the  extension 
of  slavery  on  shore.  During  almost  the  whole  period  of  that  war,  some 
portion  of  our  territory  was  in  possession  of  the  enemy.  We  were  con 
stantly  exposed  to  attacks  upon  the  coasts,  and  to  incursions  of  the  ruthless 
savages  on  our  western  frontiers.  Our  ports  blockaded,  our  soil  trampled 
by  the  foot  of  the  foe,  and  wet  with  the  blood  of  our  own  citizens;  the 
blaze  of  the  cabin  in  the  wilderness,  arid  of  the  Capitol  in  this  city,  all  con 
spired  to  wake  the  patriotism  of  our  citizens,  and  called  upon  them  to 
avenge  the  wrongs  of  their  country,  and  to  protect  their  homes,  and  defend 
their  wives  and  their  children.  But  how  is  it  now?  Is  our  country  in 
vaded,  or  even  in  danger  of  invasion?  Nothing  like  it.  We  are  spreading 
all  the  horrors  of  war  in  a  fore'gn  country;  we  are  taking  the  advantage  of 
the  weakness  and  poverty,  of  the  distraction  and  disorders  of  a  sister  repub 
lic,  to  overrun  her  territory,  that  we  may  filch  from  her  a  portion  of  her 
possessions.  We  are  called  upon,  not  by  the  dictates  of  pure  patriotism ,  but 
by  the  promptings  of  a  vile  ambition ,  to  prosecute  this  war.  We  are  asked 
to  clothe  the  President  with  power  to  entice  the  young  men  of  the  country 
from  the  habits  of  industry,  and  from  the  pursuits  of  peace,  that  their  bones 
may  bleach  upon  the  sickly  plains,  or  amid  the  mountain  passes  of  Mexico. 
Does  not  this  hasty  glance  at  the  two  wars  show  at  once,  and  conclusively, 
that  there  is  no  just  comparison  between  them?  They  are,  in  fact,  the  very 
antipodes  of  each  other.  In  their  causes,  and  the  purposes  for  which  they 
are  prosecuted,  they  are  as  far  asunder  as  the  poles.  The  one  was  just,, 
the  other  is  unjust;  the  former  was  defensive,  the  latter  is  aggressive;  that 
was  prosecuted  in  defence  of  freedom,  and  this  is  waged  to  extend  slavery. 
But,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  told  that  we  must  stand  by  our  country  in 
time  of  war;  that  war  is  the  law  of  the  land,  and,  like  all  other  laws,  must 
be  obeyed  by  every  good  citizen.  I  readily  admit  that  every  patriot  should 
stand  by  his  country,  and  is  bound  to  obey  the  laws  of  the  land.  But  this 
is  perfectly  consistent  with  withholding  supplies.  We,  as  members  of  Con 
gress,  areas  much  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  land  as  private  citizens.  Nay, 
we  are  placed  here  to  support  the  laws,  and  to  preserve  them  inviolate. 
And  first  and  foremost  in  this  list  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States.  Every  member,  in  taking  his  seat,  takes 
upon  himself  a  solemn  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  country. 
Now,  one  of  the  great  objects  of  that  sacred  instrument  is  to  secure  popular 
rights,  and  this  is  to  be  effected  by  keeping  each  department  of  the  Govern 
ment  distinct  and  separate.  The  President  is  entrusted  with  the  power  of 
executing  the  laws,  but  the  power  of  making  them  is  devolved  upon  Con 
gress.  If  we  attempt  to  encroach  upon  the  Executive,  we  violate  our 
organic  law;  and  we  are  guilty  of  a  similar  violation,  if  we  tamely  submit 
to  the  encroachments  of  the  Executive  upon  the  prerogatives  of  Congress. 
In  relation  to  war,  it  is  the  prerogative  of  the  President,  as  comrnander-in- 
chief,  to  direct  the  military  movements;  but  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
have  wisely  vested  in  Congress  the  whole  subject  of  supplies,  whether  it 
be  of  money  or  of  men.  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  raise  and  support 
armies,"  is  the.  language  of  the  Constitution  itself.  If  we  think  the  Presi 
dent  is  prosecuting  a  war  for  an  improper  object,  or  an  unholy  end,  it  is  not 
only  our  right,  but  our  duty,  to  restrain  him:  and  this  can  only  be  done  by 


withholding  from  him  the  means  of  carrying"  it  on.  And,  by  so  doing,  we 
violate  no  law.  If  any  expense  has  been  incurred  by  authority  of  law,  the 
faith  of  the  nation  is  pledged ,  and  Congress  have  no  moral  right  to  withhold 
the  appropriation.  But.  when  they  are  called  upon  to  make  new  grants  of 
men  and  money,  they  have  the  right  to  exercise  their  own  judgment,  and 
to  grantor  withhold,  as  they  may  think  proper.  Besides,  our  ordinary  ap 
propriation  bills  are  prospective  in  their  character,  and  have  reference  solely 
to  future  operations. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  has  been  more  than  insinuated  on  this  floor,  that 
we  have  no  constitutional  power  to  withhold  supplies.  No  constitutional 
power  !  I  would  gladly  ask  in  what  department  of  the  Government  the 
law-making  power  is  placed  by  the  Constitution  ?  Is  it  given  exclusively 
to  the  Executive?  Such  must  be  the  fact,  if  intimations  thrown  out  here, 
are  to  be  regarded  as  the  fundamental  law.  But  every  man,  who  is  but 
superficially  acquainted  with  the  structure  of  our  Government,  knows  that 
the  law-making  power  is  vested  in  Congress — that  the  Senate  and  the  House 
hold  the  men  and  the  money  in  their  hands,  and  can  give  or  withhold  them 
at  their  pleasure.  This  is  a  power  inherent  in  every  free  government;  and 
to  say  that  we  do  not  possess  it,  is  to  say  that  we  are  already  under  a  mili 
tary  despotism.  According  to  this  doctrine,  when  war  is  once  commenced, 
the  President  has  absolute  power,  and  may  command  the  resources  of  the 
country  to  an  unlimited  extent.  He  may  call  out  what  force  he  pleases, 
'and  march  them  wherever  his  ambition  shall  dictate.  Suppose,  in  the  case 
before  us,  that  Mexico  should  declare  to  us,  and  to  the  world,  that  she  was 
disposed  to  treat  with  us  on  the  most  favorable  terms — terms  perfectly  satis 
factory  to  nine-tenths  of  our  people — and  that  the  President,  mad  with  am 
bition,  should  spurn  the  offer,  and  declare  that  he  would  not  desist  from  a 
vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war,  until  he  had  exterminated  the  whole  race, 
and  possessed  their  entire  country;  is  there  a  man  on  this  floor  who  would 
Dot  feel  himself  called  upon  to  arrest  this  mad  scheme  of  Executive  barbarity? 
There  would,  I  trust,  be  but  one  opinion  upon  this  subject.  If  the  Presi 
dent  was  deaf  to  the  voice  of  remonstrance,  every  member  would  feel  him 
self  impelled,  by  a  sense  of  duty,  by  the  dictates  of  humanity,  by  his  con 
stitutional  obligations,  to  refuse  to  the  Executive  the  means  of  prosecuting 
such  a  war.  Now,  this  is  yielding  the  whole  principle.  This,  I  allow, 
would  be  an  extreme  case;  but,  if  Congress  can  withhold  supplies  in  any 
case,  it  proves  that,  they  have  the  power ,  and,  being  the  sole  judges  of  the 
exigency,  they  may  exercise  this  power  whenever  they  deem  it  expedient. 

I  know  the  distinction  which  some  gentlemen  take  between  a  state  of 
peace  and  a  state  of  war.  They  will  admit  that  we  are  not  bound  to  com 
ply  with  the  requests  of  the  President,  in  ordinary  cases,  in  times  of  peace; 
but  when  we  are  engaged  in  war,  the  President,  being  Commander-in- 
Chief,  must  be  obeyed.  I  allow  that  he  is  Commander-in-Chief,  but  of 
what?  Of  the  people  in  their  civil  capacity?  Of  Congress  in  their  legis 
lative  character?  This  is  the  length  to  which  some  gentlemen  would  lead  us;' 
they  would  chain  us  to  the  conquering  car  of  a  military  despot,  and  compel  us 
to  follow  him  in  his  mad  career  of  aggression  and  conquest.  Gentlemen, 
who  boast  of  their  democracy,  and  who  are  so  fond  of  proclaiming  the  trite 
maxim,  that  the  will  of  the  people  is  the  law  of  the  land,  may  give  them 
selves  up  to  Executive  dictation,  and  become  the  mere  tools  of  meir  Cpm- 
inander-in-Chief;  bull  have  other  and  higher  duties  to  perform.  I  must 
exercise  my  owu  judgment,  and  fallow  my  own  sense  of  duty,  I  admit 


that  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  a  state  of  peace  and  a  state  of  war;  but 
I  have  yet  to  learn  that  we  must  bring  to  the  Constitution  of  our  country 
any  rule  of  interpretation  in  war  that  would  not  be  sound  in  time  of  peace. 
Congress  is  the  law-making  power  at  all  times — in  war  no  less  than  in  peace. 
There  are  strong  reasons  why  Congress  should  be  more  watchful  of  their 
prerogative  in  war  than  in  peace.  War,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  in 
creases  Executive  patronage,  and  greatly  augments  Executive  power.  This 
department  of  the  Government  is  never  so  dangerous  to  our  liberties  as  when 
clad  in  armor.  It  is  then,  more  especially,  that  the  people's  Representa 
tives  should  take  an  independent  stand,  and  bring  into  exercise  all  those 
checks  and  balances,  which  our  patriot  fathers  have  wisely  provided  for  in 
the  Constitution. 

Nothing  can  be  more  alarming— nothing  more  dangerous  to  our  liber 
ties — than  the  views  which  some  gentlemen  appear  to  entertain  on  this 
subject.  If  we  must  give  the  President  whatever  he  asks,  simply  because 
we  are  engaged  in  war,  it  would  be  an  easy  thing  for  some  modern  Caesar, 
or  second  Napoleon,  to  raise  himself  to  supreme  command  in  this  nation.. 
Suppose  some  master-spirit  should  be  raised  to  the  Presidency,  and  he 
should  aspire  at  absolute  power,  what  would  it  be  necessary  for  him  to  do? 
Simply  to  involve  the  nation  in  a  war,  and  then  Congress  must  give  all  the 
men  and  all  the  money  his  ambition  might  require.  He  would,  under  the 
pretence  of  ce  conquering  a  peace,"  augment  the  military  force  under  his 
command,  until  he  had  a  power  sufficient  to  establish  for  himself  a  military 
despotism  on  the  ruins  of  our  free  institutions.  Gentlemen  may  smile  at 
this,  and  think  there  is  no  danger.  So  Rome  thought  when  she  was  grant 
ing  supplies  to  Caesar  in  Gaul;  but  the  very  force  put  into  his  hands  enabled 
him  to  triumph  over  her  liberties. 

But  some  gentlemen  may  say  that  we  mistake  the  character  of  the  law 
of  war.  When  Congress  declare  war,  that  becomes  the  law  of  the  land — 
a  law  which  is  not  repealable  by  Congress  like  other  statutes.  I  know, sir,, 
that  this  position  is  substantially  true;  I  am  aware  that  when  war  is  made, 
it  can  only  be  completely  terminated  by  a  treaty  of  peace,  and  that  in  this 
treaty,  the  President  has  the  initiative.  But  this  very  fact  shows  the  neces 
sity  of  our  acting  with  great  caution,,  both  in  declaring  war,  and  in  granting 
means  for  its  prosecution.  The  very  fact  that  war  increases  Executive 
power, should  teach  us  not  to  surrender  to  him  powers  not  granted  by  the 
Constitution.  It  also  admonishes  us  so  to  exercise  our  prerogative  over 
the  sinews  of  war,  as  to  maintain  a  just  balance  of  power.  But  we  are  told 
that  the  laws  of  war  must  be  obeyed  by  the  people  arid  the  people's  Repre 
sentatives.  I  readily  admit  that  we  must  obey  all  laws,  and  submit  to  all  le 
gal  authority.  But  I  should  like  to  know  what  law  we  violate,  when  we 
deny  to  the  President  any  grant  he  may  ask  of  us?  Is  there  any  law,  fun 
damental  or  otherwise,  which  requires  us  to  do  his  bidding  in  all  things? 
I  should  like  to  be  informed,  by  some  of  my  good  Democratic  friends,  what 
law  they  violated,  when  they  voted  down  the  bill  providing  for  a  lieutenant- 
general;  or  whether  they  can  be  regarded  as  law-breakers,  because  they  re 
jected  the  Executive  recommendation  of  a  tax  upon  tea  and  coffee?  Or^ 
suppose  they  had  succeeded  in  converting  the  ten  regiment  bill  into  a  grant 
to  employ  volunteers,  rather  than  regulars,  would  they  stand  justly  charged 
with  violating  the  laws  of  the  land  ? 

The  fact  is,  Congress  has  full  jurisdiction  over  this  whole  subject,  in  war 
and  in  peace;  and  may  grant  to  the  Executive  what  means  they  may  judge 


proper.  They  violate  no  law  in  granting  supplies;  they  violate  no  law  in 
withholding  them.  They  must  exercise  their  discretion  in  all  cases.  They 
have  the  same  power ,  the  same  Constitutional  right,  to  withhold  from  the 
Executive  twenty  millions  of  dollars  for  prosecuting  the  Mexican  war,  that 
they  would  have  to  withhold  the  like  sum  for  extending  the  Cumberland 
road,  or  for  carrying  out  Whitney's  project  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific.  If 
we  must  obey  the  President  in  his  military  demands,  why  not  in  his  civil? 
He  has  the  same  power  over  the  raising  of  a  revenue,  that  he  has  over  the 
mode  of  spending  it;  and  if  we  must  grant  ten,  fifty,  or  a  hundred  thousand 
men,  because  the  President  desires  it,  we  must  lay  and  collect  taxes,  regu 
late  commerce,  establish  post  roads,  and  do  all  other  things  that  can  lawfully 
be  done,  for  the  same  reason.  We  must  make  and  unmake  Tariffs,  pass 
or  repeal  Subtreasuries,  allow  or  reject  the  private  claims  of  our  citizens,  just 
as  it  may  please  our  lord  and  master.  And,  Mr.  Chairman,  has  it  come  to 
this,  that  all  the  powers  of  this  Government  are  centred  in  one  man?  Are 
the  people  to  be  insulted  in  this  manner?  Are  they  graciously  allowed  to 
play  the  farce  of  choosing  their  own  Representatives,  and  sending  them  here 
simply  to  register  Executive  edicts?  Is  this  body  to  be  shorn  of  all  its  pre 
rogatives  and  powers?  Must  we  do  the  bidding  of  James  K.  Polk  in  all 
things?  Is  he  to  dictate  to  us  the  policy  we  must  adopt  in  relation  to  the 
all-absorbing  question  of  the  Mexican  war  ? 

"  Before  his  pride  must  his  superiors  fall, 
His  word  the  law,  and  he  the  lord  of  all  ?" 

Yes,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  the  doctrine  which  has  been  unblushingly 
proclaimed  on  this  floor.  The  gentleman  from  Indiana,  (Mr.  WICK,)  told 
us  the  other  day,  that,  when  he  could  not  go  with  the  Democratic  party,  and 
do  the  bidding  of  the  Executive,  he  should  feel  it  his  duty  to  resign,  and 
let  his  constituents  send  a  member  here  who  would.  This  avowal  was  so 
gross,  that  I  believe  no  one  has  as  yet  openly  endorsed  it.  But  if  we  analyze 
this  matter,  it  will  be  found  to  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  doctrine 
advanced  here,  that  we  have  no  power  or  right  to  withhold  supplies,  but 
must  grant  whatever  the  President  may  please  to  ask.  But  I  will  not  dwell 
longer  upon  this  despotic  doctrine.  It  is  totally  unworthy  of  a  free  Govern 
ment.  It  would  not  be  tolerated  in  the  limited  monarchies  of  Europe  fora 
single  moment.  Let  the  Ministry  advance  this  doctrine  of  passive  obedience 
in  the  French  Chambers,  or  the  English  Parliament,  and  it  would  produce 
a  storm  which  all  their  influence  could  not  control.  And  why  should  this 
despotic  doctrine  be  tolerated  here,  in  this  land  of  civil  liberty?  The  right 
of  withholding  supplies  is  an  essential  ingredient  in  a  free  Government.  It 
is  a  popular  right — the  people's  best  security.  Upon  them  must  fall  all  the 
burdens  of  the  war;  and  their  voice  should  be  heard  in  relation  to  its  prose 
cution  .  This  doctrine  lies  at  the  foundation  of  our  institutions.  It  is  sacred 
to  all  freemen,  and  formidable  to  tyrants  only. 

I  have  endeavored,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  think,  successfully,  to  show 
that  Congress  has  the  Constitutional  right  to  withhold  supplies  from  the 
Administration  in  time  of  war.  I  admit  that  withholding  supplies  is  rather 
an  extreme  measure.  It  is  like  ihe  veto  power  of  the  President — a  power 
never  designed  for  ordinary  exercise.  I'am  no  advocate  for  lawless  opposi 
tion  to  any  Administration.  I  would  justify  no  factious  act.  The  question 
before  us  is,  whether,  on  a  full  view  of  the  whole  ground,  the  present  case 
will  justify  the  exercise  of  this  lawful  prerogative.  Every  one  who  has  paid 
any  attention  to  the  progress  of  our  institutions,  must  have  witnessed  the 
constant  increase  of  Executive  prerogative  and  power.  The  veto  power  has 


now  become  an  ordinary  power  in  the  hands  of  the  President,  and  no 
Chief  Magistrate  has  ever  been  guilty  of  a  greater  abuse  of  it  than  the 
present  incumbent  of  the  White  House.  This  abuse  of  the  veto  power  just 
ly  merits  the  rebuke  of  Congress.  But  his  conduct  in  relation  to  this  war 
is  still  more  reprehensible.  And  it  becomes  those  to  whom  the  people  have 
entrusted  theii  rights  to  assert  their  prerogative,  and  curb  the  mad  ambi 
tion  of  the  Executive.  I  would  not  withhold  supplies  on  any  ordinary  oc- 
rasion.  But  I  maintain  that  the  present  is  not  an  ordinary  occasion.  The 
President,  who  had  sworn  to  support  a  Constitution  which  denies  to  him 
the  war-making  power,  by  giving  it  to  Congress  alopflc,  ordered  our  army 
into  the  territory  of  a  nation  with  which  we  were  at  peace,  and  thus  com 
menced  hostilities  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  though  they  were  then 
in  session,  and  could  have  been  consulted  at  any  moment.  We  have  seen 
the  President,  after  he  had  commenced  this  unnecessary  war,  come  before 
the  very  Congress  whose  prerogative  he  had  invaded,  with  a  declaration  that 
"  Mexico  had  invaded  the  United  States,  and  shed  American  blood  upon 
American  soil  " — a  declaration  which  has  been  shown  over  and  over  again, 
to  be  totally  at  variance  with  the  facts  in  the  case.  In  his  Message  of  May 
11,  1846,  the  President  gave  every  assurance  that  he  had  no  designs  of  con 
quest,  but  simply  sought  an  honorable  peace.  "  I  deem  it  proper  to  de 
clare,"  says  he,  "  that  it  is  my  anxious  desire  not  only  to  terminate  hostili 
ties  speedily,  but  to  bring  all  matters  in  dispute  between  this  Government 
and  Mexico  to  an  early  and  amicable  adjustment."  But  as  early  as  May 
15th,  only  four  days  after  the  President's  assurance  of  a  desire  for  peace,  his 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  Mr.  Bancroft,  in  his  orders  to  Commodore  Sloat, 
discloses'the  intention  of  the  Government  to  seize  and  hold  California;  and 
he  directs  him  to  "  conciliate  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  California,  and 
also  in  Senora,  towards  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  and  to  endeavor 
to  render  their  relations  with  the  United  States  as  friendly  as  possible."  On 
the  8th  of  June,  Mr.  Bancroft  instructs  the  Commodore  as  follows:  "  It  is 
rumored  that  the  province  of  California  is  well  disposed  to  accede  to  friendly 
relations  with  the  United  States.  You  will  encourage  the  people  in  that  re 
gion  (o  enter  into  relations  of  amity  with  our  country.  You  will  take  such 
measures  as  will  best  promote  the  attachment  of  the  people  of  California  to 
the  United  States,  will  advance  their  prosperity,  and  wilt  make  that  vast  re 
gion  a  desirable  place  of  residence  for  ebiigrants  from  our  soil.''''  The 
Secretaiy  of  War,  Mr.  Marcy,  gives  similar  instructions  to  Gen.  Kearny, 
as  early  as  June  3,  1846;  and  the  famous  letter  of  Mr.  Marcy  to  Col.  Stev 
enson,  in  relation  to  his  California  regiment,  establishes  the  general  policy 
of  the  Administration,  and  shows  that  two  days  after  the  declaration  of  war 
the  President  had  resolved  to  make  it  a  war  of  conquest. 

The  very  fact  that  the  war  has  been  prosecuted  in  the  remote  and 
sparsely  populated  province  of  California,  proves  most  conclusively  that 
conquest  alone  is  the  object.  Why  attempt  "to  make  that  vast  region  a  de 
sirable  place  of  lesidence  for  emigrants  from  our  soil,"  unless  it  was  to  be 
added  to  the  United  States?  It  would  do  nothing  towards  subduing  Mex 
ico,  to  take  possession  of  that  distant  province;  and  hence  we  are  bound  to 
believe,  thul  its  capture  was  designed  as  a  means  of  holding  and  possessing 
it.  In  facf,  Mr.  Secretary  Bancroft,  in  his  letter  to  Commodore  Sloat  of 
July  12th,  declares,  that  it  is  important  to  have  the  territory  in  our -posses 
sion  ai  i!  ;  a  treaty,  that  it  may  be  loft  in  our  hands.  "The  object 
of  the  U  tl  o-j  S  ut.es,"  savs  he,  "has  reference  to  ultimata  peace  with  Mex 
ico;  and  if,  ui  that  peace,  the  basis  of  the  uti  possi&tis  should  be  cstub- 


lished.  the  Government  expects,  through  your  forces,  to  be  found  in  actual 
possession  of  Upper  California."  If  there  was  any  other  evidence  neces 
sary,  that  the  war  is  one  of  aggression  and  conquest,  it  will  be  found 
in  the  Message  of  the  President  at  the  opening  of  the  session.  He  tells 
us  expressly,  that  Mexico  must  pay  the  expense  of  the  war.  But  how  will 
she  be  able  to  do  that?  She  has  failed  to  pay  the  instalments  on  the  in 
demnity  due  to  our  citizens  from  pecuniary  inability,  and  does  the  Presi 
dent  expect  that  she  will  make  so  much  by  the  war,  as  to  enable  her  to  pay 
some  fifty  or  sixty  millions  in  gold  and  silver?  Does  he  not  know  that  she 
has  nothing  but  territory  with  which  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  war?  Has 
he  not  himself  informed  us,  that  she  is  too  poor  to  make  a  treaty?  And 
does  he  not,  on  that  ground,  ask  Congress  to  put  three  millions  into  his 
hands,  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  bribe  the  Government  and  the  soldiers,  so 
that  they  may  be  kept  quiet  till  a  treaty  can  be  made  and  ratified?  The 
declaration  of  the  President,  that  Mexico  must  indemnify  us  for  the  ex 
penses  of  the  war,  amounts  to  a  declaration,  that  we  are  prosecuting  the 
war  for  acquisition  of  territory,  and  that  he  will  not  make  peace  till  Mexico 
consents  to  the  dismemberment  of  her  Republic. 

This  war  is  rendered  extraordinary,  not  only  from  its  unconstitutional 
commencement  and  aggressive  character,  but  also  from  the  prospect  of  suc 
cess  with  which  it.  is  attended.  I  know  the  bravery  of  our  troops;  I  allow 
the  skill  of  our  officers;  they  can  perform  any  thing  but  impossibilities; 
but  Nature  has  set  bounds  to  all  human  efforts.  Mexico  has  a  population. 
of  ten  or  eleven  millions,  being  about  half  that  of  ours;  and  this  popu 
lation  is  spread  over  a  territory  one-third  larger  than  that  of  the  United 
States.  A  nation  which  acts  upon  the  defensive,  has  always  an  advantage 
over  the  invaders.  Nature  has  also  guarded  Mexico  at  almost  every  point.  If 
we  attack  her  from  the  Gulf,  we  have  to  encounter  all  the  perils  of  a  dan 
gerous  sea  and  a  pestilential  shore.  If  we  attempt  to  penetrate  into  her 
country,  we  meet  with  her  arid  plains  and  dangerous  mountain  passes — 
bulwarks  prepared  by  Nature  for  her  defence.  At  one  season  of  the  year 
the  u windows  of  heaven  are  opened,"  and  the  almost  incessant  rains  for 
bid  military  operations;  at  another,  the  "rivers  are  turned  into  a  wilderness, 
the  water  springs  into  dry  ground,"  thereby  subjecting  an  invading  army  to 
hunger,  thirst,  and  almost  every  privation.  The  habits  of  that  people  also 
adapt  them  to  a  wandering  life,  and  enable  them  to  subsist  where  our  army 
would  perish,  unless  supplied  with  provisions  from  their  own  country. 
With  all  these  obstacles  in  our  way,  and  all  these  natural  advantages  in 
their  favor,  we  carry  on  the  contest  at  fearful  odds. 

Thus  far,  we  have  been  victorious  in  every  battle;  but  what  have  we 
gained?  We  have  marched  several  hundred  miles  into  the  enemy's  coun 
try,  far  away  from  our  supplies,  and  have  just  arrived  at  a  point  where  vic 
tory  yields  us  no  particular  advantage,  and  where  defeat  would  be  ruin. 
Every  city  we  capture  swallows  up  a  portion  of  our  army,  and  diminishes 
our  ability  to  proceed.  Every  step  we  advance  takes  us  farther  from  out- 
supplies,  and  renders  our  position  more  dangerous.  And  while  all  these 
causes  are  impediments  in  our  way,  and  expose  us  to  new  clangers,  thejr 
operate  in  favor  of  our  enemy.  This  very  invasion  has  given  union  to 
their  councils,  stability  to  their  Government, and  desperation  to  their  troop?. 
While  our  troops  are  dragging  their  lives  out  in  a  foreign  war,  these  despised 
Mexicans  are  lighting  for  their  own  country — the  land  of  their  birth — for 
their  homos,  their  firesides,  and,  above  all,  for  their  religion. 

Il  is  not  possible;  sir,  to  conquer  such  a  people^  if  they  are  only  united 


10 

and  determined.  You  may  march  into  their  country;  you  may  capture 
their  towns;  you  may  route  their  armies,  and  lay  waste  their  villages;  but 
you  cannot  conquer  them.  If  your  force  is  large,  they  will  cut  off  your 
supplies  and  starve  you  into  submission;  if  your  force  is  small,  they  will 
cut  you  off  in  detail. 

What  prospect,  then,  have  we  for  success  in  this  foreign  war  of  conquest 
in  which  we  are  now  engaged?  What  has  been  our  success  thus  far?  We 
have  conquered  in  every  battle;  we  have  gained  three  victories;  we  have 
marched  far  into  the  country,  and,  to  all  human  appearances,  we  are  far 
ther  from  a  peace  than  we  were  when  the  first  gun  was  fired.  We  have 
called  out  some  twenty -five  thousand  volunteers,  and  have  employed  our 
regular  army,  and  (to  say  nothing  of  our  naval  disasters,)  what  have  we 
gained?  We  have  had  victories  without  advantages.  We  have  taught  the 
Mexicans  that  they  cannot  compete  with  us  in  the  open  field,  and  they  have 
taught  us  that  we  are  not  a  match  for  them  in  guerilla  warfare.  We 
have  been  teaching  them  the  art  of  war;  we  have  made  them  acquainted 
with  our  tactics;  we  have  shown  them  where  their  weakness  and  where 
their  strength  lies,  and  they  appear  to  be  profiting  by  the  lesson.  And,  on 
our  part,  we  have  learned  a  lesson  which  should  prove  a  salutary  one.  We 
have  learned  that  pestilence  and  the  sword  will  decimate  our  forces  every 
three  months,  and  thus  thin  our  ranks  some  thirty-five  per  cent,  in  a  year, 
Our  late  associate,  Col.  Baker,  declared,  in  his  speedy  on  this  floor,  that  of 
his  regiment  of  820,  about  100  had  left  their  bones  in  the  valley  of  the 
Rio  Grande,  and  that  about  200  more,  worn  down  by  hardships  and  ema 
ciated  by  disease,  had  been  dismissed  to  perish  by  the  way,  or  to  find  their 
graves  with  their  friends  at  home;  that  all  this  mortality  had  taken  place  in 
about  six  months,  and  that  his  regiment  had  never  seen  the  foe.  He  also 
informed  us,  that  what  was  true  of  his  regiment  was  generally  true  of  other 
regiments  of  the  volunteers. 

We  have  a  similar  lesson  from  the  answer  of  the  Adjutant  General  to  a 
resolution  of  the  House,  which  was  submitted  a  few  days  since.  We  are 
informed  by  that  document,  that,  in  a  period  of  from  sixty  to  ninety  days 
after  the  volunteers  had  joined  the  army  in  the  field,  their  numbers  were 
reduced  by  desertion  331;  by  deaths  in  battle  76;  by  disease  637;  and  by 
discharges,  in  consequence  of  sickness  and  disability,  between  two  and  three 
thousand;  making,  in  all,  4,100  men;  being  at  the  rate  of  20  per  cent,  in 
two  and  a  half  months,  or  about  80  per  cent,  per  annum.  This  estimate 
does  not  include  the  sick  which  remain  with  the  army.  No  doubt  the  period 
of  the  year  covered  by  this  return,  is  more  sickly  than  the  year  would 
average.  But,  from  the  best  information  I  am  able  to  obtain,  I  think  we 
may  safely  calculate  that  our  army  in  Mexico  will  be  reduced  40  per  cent, 
per  annum;  one  half  by  deaths  from  the  sword  and  disease,  and  the  other 
half  from  sickness  and  debility  of  such  a  character  as  would  justify  a  dis 
charge.  Many  of  those  discharged  would  perish  before  they  could  reach 
their  homes,  and  others  might  reach  their  friends  mere  walking  skeletons, 
showing  the  glory  of  a  campaign  of  conquest. 

Military  men,  and  those  best  acquainted  with  the  country  and  its  defences, 
are  of  the  opinion,  that  to  prosecute  the  war  with  vigor,  would  require  a 
force  of  sixty  or  seventy  thousand  on  the  land,  to  say  nothing  of  our  naval 
force  in  the  Gulf  and  on  the  Pacific.  This  force,  in  a  single  year,  would 
be  reduced  nearly  one  half  by  death  and  disease;  and,  after  leaving  a  suffi 
cient  garrison  at  Matamoras,  Camargo,  Monterey,  Saltillo,  Victoria,  Tam- 
pico;  San  Louis  Potosi;  Vera  Cruz,  and  other  places  in  your  rear,  you  would 


11 

hardly  have  25,000  with  which  to  commence  your  march  for  the  halls  of 
the  Montezumas.  How  many  of  these  would  fall  in  the  mountain  passes, 
those  Thermopylses  of  Mexico,  before  reaching  the  famous  city,  and  how 
many  would  be  lost  in  the  attempt  to  possess  it,  it  is  impossible  to  say;  but, 
judging  from  the  resistance  at  Monterey,  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  our 
victories  would  be  dearly  bought.  In  such  an  enterprise,  we  should  be  suc 
cessful  or  unsuccessful.  If  victory  crowned  our  arms,  we  should  be  in  pos 
session  of  the  capital  of  that  Republic;  but  what  then  ?  If  the  Mexicans  were 
united  and  determined  to  resist,  this  would  do  nothing  towards  subduing  them. 
We  should  be  in  the  heart  of  their  country ,  where  they  could  cut  off  our  sup 
plies,  and  perhaps  destroy  our  army.  Our  military  commanders  might " revel 
in  the  halls  of  the  Montezumas,"  as  Napoleon  did  in  the  Kremlin  of  the  Czars, 
but  Mexico  might  prove  to  us  what  Moscow  did  to  the  French  in  that  event 
ful  campaign.  Success  in  reaching  the  city  might  prove  to  us  as  it  did  to 
Napoleon  in  that  case — the  destruction  of  all  our  hopes,  and  the  loss  of  our 
gallant  army.  But,  if  we  should  be  unsuccessful  in  our  attack  upon  the 
city  of  Mexico,  our  army  would  probably  be  cut  off.  Once  routed,  we 
should  find  but  little  mercy  from  the  Mexican  population  in  our  rear.  They 
would  rise  as  one  man,  and  reak  their  vengeance  upon  our  flying  forces. 

I  am  fully  aware  that  the  idea  of  defeat  hardly  enters  into  the  calculation 
of  those  who  are  warmly  devoted  to  this  war.  They  speak  of  the  prowess 
of  this  nation,  as  though  we  could  successfully  meet  the  world  in  arms.  I 
am  not  insensible  of  our  power  in  a  war  of  defence — fighting  for  our  own 
sqil  and  institutions,  our  homes  and  altars,  we  should  be  invincible. 
But  when  we  engage  in  a  war  of  conquest,  prosecuted  far  from  our  own 
country,  and  in  the  heart  of  the  enemy's,  the  case  is  entirely  different.  The 
example  of  Napoleon  in  Russia,  to  which  we  have  already  alluded,  should 
make  us  pause.  The  war  prosecuted  by  Napoleon  in  Spain  is  an  example 
in  point;  and  Mexico  or  New  Spain  may  prove  to  us  what  old  Spain  did  to 
the  well-appointed  armies  of  that  mighty  captain.  We  may  take  possession 
of  the  cities  of  Mexico,  and  hold  them  as  the  French  have  held  Algiers  for 
the  last  fifteen  years;  and  we  may  find,  as  France  has,  that  the  possession 
is  not  worth  the  cost.  We  may  prosecute  the  war  as  we  did  the  war  in 
Florida,  at  great  expense  of  blood  and  treasure;  and  the  glory  which  will 
encircle  our  brow  in  the  one  case,  will  be  as  great  as  it  has  proved  in  the 
other.  With  an  adequate  force  in  Mexico,  we  may  expect  to  lose  twenty 
thousand,  annually,  during  the  war.  And  who  can  be  indifferent  to  this 
wanton  sacrifice  of  human  life  ?  Will  the  moral  and  religious  feelings  of 
our  people  acquiesce  in  such  a  murderous  policy  for  the  unholy  purposes  of 
conquest?  Is  new  slave  territory  to  be  purchased  at  such  a  sacrifice  of 
blood?  The  very  idea  is  revolting.  If  we  believe  in  an  overruling  Provi 
dence — if  we  allow  that  God  rules  in  the  armies  of  heaven,  and  among  the 
inhabitants  of  the  earth,  and  punishes  nations  for  their  sins,  may  we  not 
fear  that  his  judgments  will  fall  upon  this  people?  Can  we  expect  that  the 
God  of  battles  will  crown  our  arms  with  ultimate  success?  We  maybe 
prospered  for  a  season;  we  may  go  on  conquering  and  to  conquer,  till  the 
measure  of  our  iniquity  is  full;  but  the  time  will  come,  when  this  insatiate 
lust  for  dominion,  this  disregard  of  the  principles  of  justice  and  humanity, 
will  bring  upon  this  nation  the  calamities  which  have  befallen  other  re 
publics. 

We  see  in  the  case  before  us  a  fruitful  source  of  discord.  The  war  was 
commenced  for  the  conquest  of  territory  to  convert  into  slave  States.  The 
most  that  the  Administration,  desire  in  the  first  instance;  is  to  acquire  the 


12 

territory.  The  South  declare  upon  this  floor  that  if  territory  is  acquired,  it 
must  be  slave  territory  ;  that  they  will  not  submit  to  be  Surrounded  by  a 
cordon  of  free  States.  On  the  other  hand,  the  North  have  resolved,  arid 
firmly  resolved,  that  not  another  foot  of  slave  territory  shall  be  added  to  the 

"Union.  Here,  then,  an  issue  is  directly  made,  and  I  have  no  doubt  but 
that  the  North  will  be  found  true  to  her  principles,  when  the  day  of  trial 
conies.  You  may  flatter  yourselves  with  the  prospect  of  buying  up  north 
ern  votes  :  you  may  find  men  here  who  will  betray  their  friends,  and  at 
tempt  to  commit  their  constituents  ;  but  when  they  return  to  their  homes, 
and  submit  their  claims  to  their  constituents,  they  will  find  an  indignant 
and  betiayed  people  ready  to  give  them  the  traitor's  due.  I  should  like  to 
know  whether  the  honest  yeomanry  of  Pennsylvania  will  allow  their  repre 
sentatives  on  this  floor  to  disregard  their  feelings  with  impunity,  and  tram 
ple  the  resolves  of  their  legislature  in  the  dust? 

I  tell  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  North  will  stand  firm.     You  cannot 

judge  of  the  present  by  the  past.  Within  two  years  there  has  been  a  radical 
change  in  public  sentiment  in  the  free  States.  The  Texas  outrage,  follow 
ed  by  this  iniquitous  war,  both  for  the  extension  of  slavery,  has  brought 
the  people  to  their  senses.  From  the  State  of  Maine,  from  the  granite  hills 
of  New  Hampshire,  from  united  New  England,  the  word  has  gone  forth, 
and  the  glorious  response  from  New  York,  from  Pennsylvania,  from  Ohio, 
leaves  no  doubt  on  the  subject  of  public  feeling.  The  sentiment  is  deep- 
rooted  ;  it  is  a  strong  religious  conviction  that  slavery  is  a  curse,  and  is  at 
war  with  the  best  interests  of  our  country  and  of  humanity.  A  great  moral 
revolution  has  commenced,  and  such  revolutions  can  never  go  backward. 
They  have  seen  this  Administration  breaking  through  the  barriers  of  the 
Constitution  to  sustain  and  extend  slavery,  and  the  people  in  the  free  Slates 
have  resolved  that  the  evil  shall  extend  no  farther.  I  say  to  the  South  ia 
all  frankness,  you  will  find  northern  sentiment  immovable  on  this  subject, 
tf  as  firm  as  nature,  and  as  fixed  as  fate."  And  [  will  say  to  these  Demo 
crats  of  the  North,  who  are  fawning  around  this  weak  Administration,  and 
betraying  northern  interests,  that  they  may  pick  the  crumbs  which  fall  from, 
the  Executive  table — you  are  treasuring  up  for  yourselves  wrath  against 
the  day  of  wrath.  You  may  league  all  your  forces  with  those  of  the  Presi 
dent,  you  may  give  him  all  the  aid  in  your  power,  in  the  prosecution  of 
this  war  of  conquest,  that  the  free  territory  of  Mexico  may  be  brought 
into  this  Union  to  increase  the  slave  power,  but  your  labor  will  be  fruit 
less.  You  may  at  this  time  meet  with  partial  success;  you  may  vote  down 
the  anti-slavery  proviso,  but  it  will  rise  again  and  haunt,  you  like  the  ghost 
of  Banquo.  Another  Congress  will  be  here  before  this  subject  can  be  final 
ly  disposed  of ;  and ,  being  more  fresh  from  the  people  than  yourselves, 
they  will  speak  a  different  language.  You  may  attempt  another  compro 
mise  with  slavery,  but  the  people  will  discard  it.  You  may  make  a  cove 
nant  with  that  institution, and  bind  yourselves  to  its  support,  but  T  tell  you, 
in  the  strong  language  of  the  Hebrew  prophet,  "  Your  covenant  with  death 
shall  be  disannulled,  your  agreement  with  hell  shall  not  stand  ;  when  the 
overflowing  scourge  shall  pass  through,  then  ye  shall  be  trodden  down, 
by  it." 

Do  not  all  these  considerations,  sir,  show  that  the  war  in  which  we  arc 
engaged  is  one  of  no  ordinary  character?  I  have  attempted  to  show,  and 
I  think  not  without  success,  that  the  war  is  aggressive  on  our  part;  that  it 
vvViis  commenced  by  ihe  Executive  in  contravention  of  the  Constitution,  and 
that  without  any  just  cause;  that  it  is  prosecuted  for  the  unholy  purpose  of 


13 

dismembering  Mexico,  that  her  territory  may  be  brought  into  the  Union  as 
slave  Stales,  thereby  giving  the  South  a  perpetual  preponderance  in  our 
national  councils;  that  the  war  must'  be  attended  with  a  vast  sacrifice  of 
blood  and  treasure;  that  defeat  may  ultimately  befal  our  army;  and  that 
success  might  bring  into  the  Union  a  question  more  dangerous  to  our  peace 
than  any  army  of  Mexico — more  fatal  to  our  Union  than  all  other  causes  com 
bined.  I  have  also  attempted  to  show  that  the  President,  deaf  to  public 
sentiment  and  public  remonstrance,  seems  determined  to  prosecute  this  un 
just  and  aggressive*war,  regardless  of  consequences.  It  seems  to  me  that 
if  there  ever  was  a  case  which  required  the  interference  of  Congress,  this 
is  that  case.  If  we,  as  representatives  of  the  people,  have  the  right  to  con 
trol  the  means,  the  circumstances  connected  with  this  war,  and  the  charac 
ter  of  the  war  itself,  demand  the  exercise  of  this  right. 

On  a  subject  of  this  magnitude  every  one  must  judge  for  himself.  I  am 
not  authorized  to  speak  for  others,  though  I  know  that  many  others  concur 
with  me  in  opinion.  I  must  act  on  my  own  responsibility,  and  I  cheer 
fully  accord  the  same  liberty  to  others.  Nor  is  it,  perhaps,  stiange  that 
there  should  be  a  difference  of  opinion  in  relation  to  this  policy.  Those 
who  believe  that  the  war  is  just;  that  it.  is  prosecuted  wisely,  with  a  good 
prospect  of  success;  that  dismembering  Mexico  is  a  justifiable  object,  and 
that  it  will  prove  a  blessing  to  this  country,  will,  of  course,  see  no  reason 
why  they  should  restrain  the  Executive  by  withholding  supplies.  But 
those  who  entertain  the  opposite  opinion — who  regard  the  war  as  unneces 
sary  and  unjust — who  believe  that  the  dismemberment  of  Mexico  would  be 
an  outrage,  and  bringing  territory  into  the  Union  by  conquest  will  endanger 
its  existence — must,  as  it  seems  to  me,  see  no  reason  why  they  should  not 
take  measures  to  arrest  this  evil  and  avert  this  calamity.  I  can  judge  only 
for  myself;  but  I  am  free  to  declare  that,  believing  as  I  do,  that  the  whole 
affair  is  politically  and  morally  wrong,  I  could  not  justify  myself  in  giving 
to  the  President  the  means  of  bringing  dishonor  upon  our  national  charac 
ter,  and  of  endangering  the  peace  of  the  Union,  by  attempting  to  extend" 
the  institution  of  slavery.  I  feel  that  I  should  be  guilty  of  gross  inconsis 
tency — of  unmanly  cowardice — of  a  political  and  moral  wrong — of  a  sin. 
in  the  sight  of  God,  if  I  lent  my  influence  to  the  prosecution  of  such  a  war. 
As  a  faithful  representative,  as  one  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution,  and  to- 
promote  the  best  interests  of  my  country,  I  cannot,  I  will  not  do  it,  come 
what  may. 

But  I  may  be  asked,  whether  1  will  desert  my  country  in  the 
hour  of  her  peril;  whether  I  feel  indifferent  to  the  glory  of  our  country, 
and  the  honor  of  her  flag?  Mr.  Chairman,  I  owe  allegiance  to  my  coun 
try;  and,  instead  of  deserting  her  in  the  hour  of  her  peril,  I  cling  to  her 
the  stronger  as  her  dangers  increase.  A  fond  regard  for  my  country 
has  induced  me  at  this  time  to  speak  in  her  behalf,  and  to  utter  sentiments 
which  I  know  will  not  be  approved  by  some  of  my  personal  and  political 
friends.  I  see  her  in  danger.  Her  Constitution  has  been  assailed;  its  sa 
cred  principles  have  been  violated  by  one  who  has  been  placed  as  their  guar 
dian.  The  Executive  has  invaded  the  sacred  prerogative  of  Congress  by 
exercising  the  war-making  power.  I  see  the  Constitution  in  danger  in 
another  respect.  We  have  been  told  on  this  floor,  by  several  gentlemen, 
that  the  Executive  is  supreme  in  time  of  war,  and  that  we  are  bound  to 
give  him  whatever  he  may  ask.  Here,  again,  I  believe  that  my  country  is 
in  danger  of  having  her  fundamental  law  so  interpreted  as  to  convert  her 
form  of  Government  into  a  military  despotism.  And;  in  such  an  hour  of 


14 

danger,  I  should  be  recreant -to  duty,  did  I  not  raise  my  feeble  voice  in 
her  behalf,  and  in  behalf  of  her  free  institutions.  I  have,  I  trust,  a  just 
sense  of  the  honor  of  my  country,  and  hence  I  wish  to  save  her  from  dis 
grace.  I  believe  that  her  fair  fame  has  been  tarnished  by  being  plunged 
into  an  unjust  war — a  war  of  conquest  and  aggrandizement;  and  my  regard 
for  her  honor  induces  me  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  rescue  her  from  infamy. 
I  desire  the  honor  of  her  flag,  and  hence  I  deeply  regret  that  it  has  been 
unfurled  in  any  but  a  righteous  cause.  I  hope  that  that  proud  banner  may 
ever  float  "  o'er  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  brave;"  and  hence 
I  regret  that  it  has  been  unfurled  in  a  foreign  land. 

But  some  gentlemen  speak  of  the  honor  of  our  flag,  as  though  it  could 
only  be  sustained  by  rushing  madly  into  the  very  heart  of  Mexico.  I  would 
sustain  the  honor  of  our  flag  by  bringing  it  within  our  own  territory.  I 
would  plant  it  upon  our  own  soil,  and,  as  far  as  I  have  the  power,  1  would 
there  sustain  it;  I  would  suffer  no  foreign  foe  to  trail  it  in  the  dust.  I 
believe  that  the  glory  of  the  country  and  the  honor  of  the  flag  require 
that  our  troops  should  be  recalled  from  Mexico,  and  brought  within  our 
own  borders.  I  fear  no  disgrace  from  such  a  course.  I  would  have  this 
great  nation  act  worthy  of  herself.  I  would  have  her  proclaim  at  once  to 
Mexico,  and  through  her  to  the  world,  that  we  are  not  actuated  by  ambition; 
that  we  have  no  designs  upon  the  integrity  of  her  territory;  that  we  seek 
nothing  but  peace  on  just  and  honorable  terms.  I  would,  on  such  an 
nouncement,  withdraw  our  army,  and  propose  negotiation  for  peace,  on  the 
condition  that,  in  case  of  disagreement,  the  subject  should  be  submitted 
to  arbitration.  Would  the  honor  of  the  country  suffer  by  a  course  like 
this?  Would  it  not,  on  the  contrary,  be  the  brightest  page  in  our  history, 
and  do  more  than  a  thousand  victories  to  elevate  us  among  the  nations  of 
the  earth?  No  nation  would  ascribe  such  a  course  to  cowardice,  but  rath 
er  to  magnanimity — to  true  greatness.  Such  an  example  would  be  worth 
more  to  this  country,  and  to  the  world,  than  all  the  wealth  of  the  mines  of 
Mexico . 

But  gentlemen  would  have  us  understand  that  the  honor  of  the  country 
would  be  tarnished,  and  the  glory  of  our  arms  dimmed  by  a  recall  of  our 
troops.  But  what  do  these  guardians  of  our  nation's  honor  ask  us  to  do? 
Why,  to  put  three  millions  of  dollars  into  the  hands  of  the  President,  that 
he  may  buy  a  peace  with  Mexico;  that  he  may  bribe  Santa  Anna  and  some 
of  his  rival  chiefs  to  give  us  a  peace,  so  that  we  may  safely  bring  our  army 
within  our  own  borders.  This,  then,  is  the  glory  to  which  some  gentlemen 
aspire  ! — this  the  deathless  renown  they  would  procure  for  our  arms  !  Away 
with  this  senseless  declamation  about  the  honor  of  our  country  and  the  glory 
of  our  flag.  If  our  Democratic  friends  are  so  jealous  of  our  country's  hon 
or,  let  them  pass  in  review  the  conduct  of  their  own  President.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn,  as  we  have  already  seen,  in  his  report  recommending  the  war  of  1812, 
places  the  sending  of  a  British  agent  here  in  time  of  peace,  to  foment  dis 
content  and  to  produce  disunion,  among  the  greatest  insults  and  grossest 
outrages  of  which  a  nation  could  be  guilty.  And  yet  the  President  of  the 
United  States  virtually  confesses  that  he  has  been  guilty  of  a  similar  out 
rage  against  a  sister  republic.  The  President  informs  us  that,  on  the  thir 
teenth  of  May  last — the  very  day  on  which  war  was  declared  against  Mex 
ico — he  gave  orders  to  Commodore  Conner  to  let  Santa  Anna  pass  through 
the  fleet  into  Mexico,  in  the  belief  that  he  would  produce  discord  and  revo 
lution,  which  might  prove  beneficial  to  us.  But  on  what  ground  did  he 
found  these  expectations  ?  On  intrigues  entered  into  with  Santa  Anna  in 


15 

time  of  peace.  The  President  says:  u  Information  that  he  (Santa  Anna) 
was  hostile  to  the  establishment  of  a  monarchy  and  to  European  interfe 
rence  in  the  affairs  of  his  country,  had  been  received,  from  sources  believed 
to  be  reliable,  at  the  date  of  the  recognition  of  war  by  Congress,  and  was 
afterwards  fully  confirmed  by  the  receipt  of  the  despatch  of  our  consul  in  the 
city  of  Mexico."  So  that  it  appears  that  the  President,  through  his  agents, 
had  been  plotting  with  the  treacherous  Santa  Anna  to  revolutionize  a  coun 
try  with  which  we  were  at  peace! — had  been  guilty  of  an  outrage  such  as 
Mr.  Calhoun  declared  to  be  a  just  cause  of  war!  And  now  the  servile 
tools  of  this  same  Executive  have  such  profound  regard  for  the  honor  of 
our  country,  that  they  cannot  consent  to  have  our  army  withdrawn  from  a 
foreign  soil! 

But  we  have  been  asked  whether  we  would  withhold  supplies,  and 
so  permit  our  gallant  little  army  to  suffer  for  the  want  of  clothing  and 
provisions.  All  such  inquiries  are  founded  in  gross  ignorance,  or  else  are 
designed  to  mislead  the  public.  I  would  vote  all  money  necessary 
to  pay  debts  which  have  been  already  contracted,  so  that  third  persons 
should  not  suffer.  I  would  sustain  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation  in  every 
case  of  that  character.  But  the  general  appropriation  bills  are  prospective 
in  their  operation.  The  thirty  millions  we  are  asked  to  appropriate  for  the 
army,  does  not  take  effect  till  the  first  of  July  next,  and  extends  to  July, 
1848.  It  is  entirely  prospective,  and  has  reference  to  the  prosecution  of  the 
war  seventeen  months  hence.  By  withholding  this  appropriation,  or,  by 
reducing  it  one-half,  we  should  not  injure  those  gallant  men  now  in  the 
field.  We  should  simply  prevent  the  Executive  from  sending  thousands  of 
others  to  that  land  of  pestilence  and/leath.  As  far  as  men  and  money 
should  be  necessary  to  bring  off  our  army  in  safety,  I  would  cheerfully 
grant  them.  And ,  even  in  a  military  point  of  view,  I  would  withdraw  our 
army  to  our  own  territory.  In  that  event,  our  old  standing  force  of  eight 
or  ten  thousand  would  be  amply  sufficient  to  guard  our  frontier.  All  our 
volunteer  force  might  at  once  be  dismissed,  and  the  expenses  of  the  war  re 
duced  more  than  three-fifths. 

And  why  may  not  such  a  step  be  taken?  A  vast  majority  of  the  people 
in  the  United  States  would  approve  of  it,  and  it  commends  itself  to  a  ma 
jority  of  this  House.  I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion,  from  what  I  have  heard 
myself,  and  learned  from  others,  that  if  the  gentlemen  on  this  floor  would 
forget  their  party  ties,  and  summon  moral  courage  sufficient  to  enable 
them  to  follow  their  own  judgment,  we  could  pass  a  resolution  this  day, 
recommending  to  the  President  to  recall  our  military  force  from  the  soil  of 
Mexico.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  fallen  upon  evil  times.  The  ties  of 
party  are  stronger,  I  fear,  than  the  love  of  country .  Many,  very  many,  advo 
cate  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  when,  at  the  same  time,  they  condemn  and 
loathe  it.  Some  of  my  own  political  friends  declare,  that  it  is  good  policy 
to  prosecute  the  war,  as  it  will  effectually  break  down  and  use  up  the  pre 
sent  Administration.  I  believe,  sir,  most  sincerely,  that  the  war  will  break 
down  the  present  Administration;  but  I  cannot  prosecute  it  for  such  a  pur 
pose.  I  cannot  entail  upon  posterity  a  debt  of  $100,000,000  for  the  paltry 
purposes  of  party.  I  cannot  sacrifice  twenty  thousand  of  our  citizens  an 
nually,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  more  odium  upon  the  present  occupant 
of  the  Presidential  Chair.  I  never  will  consent  to  play  at  a  game,  where 
the  lives  of  my  countrymen  are  the  stakes. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  should  grant  supplies,  and  then  hold  the  Adminis 
tration  responsible  when  the  war  is  over.  Hold  them  responsible,  when 


16 

the  mischief  is  done,  and  the  Administration  has  retired  !  I  can  conceive 
of  nothing  more  preposterous.  If  an  injury  is  done  to  the  country,  that 
injury  cannot  be  repaired.  Hold  the  President  responsible!  Hold  John 
Tyler  responsible  for  his  Texas  treaty.  The  fact  is,  that  there  is  but  little 
responsibility  in  the  Executive  when  he  is  in  office,  and  none  at  all  when 
he  has  retired;  and  you  might  with  as  much  propriety  talk  of  holding  a 
bankrupt  responsible  for  a  debt,  as  of  holding  any  President  responsible  after 
he  has  retired  from  office. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  are  in  war  and  must  light  it  out — we  must  have 
peace.  I  agree  with  gentlemen  that  we  are  in  war,  and  I  go  with  them 
most  ardently  in  desiring  peace.  But  the  question  is,  how  shall  it  be 
obtained?  Fight  it  out,  we  are  told.  If  that  was  the  only  mode  of  ob 
taining  peace,  I  might  join  in  the  cry.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are  not 
brought  to  this  extremity.  Let  us  propose  to  Mexico  just  and  honorable 
terms  of  peace,  and  if  she  refuses  to  treat,  then  there  will  be  some  propriety 
in  prosecuting  the  war.  I  am  aware  that  it  will  be  said,  that  we  have  made 
overtures  for  peace,  and  they  have  been  rejected.  We  have  made  no  direct 
overtures  that  I  am  aware  of.  We  have  made  a  proposition  to  open  nego 
tiations,  but  it  was  attended  by  a  condition  totally  unworthy  of  this  country 
or  this  age,  viz.,  that  we  should  continue  prosecuting  the  war  vigorously, 
not  only  till  the  treaty  was  signed,  but  until  it  should  be  ratified  by  the 
Mexican  Government!  The  President  had  no  just  reason  to  expect  that 
Mexico  would  close  with  such  a  proposition — a  proposition  which  we  should 
have  spurned  with  indignation,  had  it  been  made  to  us. 

Mr.  Chairman,  while  I  confess  I  see  no  reason  to  expect  a  speedy  return 
of  peace,  I  believe  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  this  Congiess  to  arrest  this  war 
within  three  months;  and  thus  bring,  not  only  the  blessings  of  peace,  but 
lasting  honor  upon  our  country.  I  would  adopt  a  Joint  Resolution,  advis 
ing  the  President  to  announce  to  Mexico  and  the  world,  that  we  have  no 
desire  to  despoil  her  of  her  possessions;  that  we  ask  nothing  but  a  settle 
ment  of  our  boundary  on  fair  and  liberal  terms,  and  the  payment  of  the 
indemnity  justly  due  to  our  citizens;  that  we  will  at  once  withdraw  our 
army  from  her  territory,  and,  on  her  consenting  to  treat,  our  fleet  should  be 
withdrawn  from  her  ports.  Let  this  fair  and  honorable  proposition  be  made 
to  Mexico,  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  she  would  accept  it.  She  would 
see  at  once  that  it  was  favorable  to  both  parties,  and,  believing  it  to  be  our 
ultimatum,  she  would  expect  nothing  better.  The  great  nations  of  Europe, 
England  and  France,  would  use  their  influence  to  induce  her  to  comply; 
and  thus  friendly  relations  would  be  restored  between  the  two  great  North 
American  Republics. 

But  I  fear  that  other  counsels  will  prevail;  that  thirst  for  dominion  will 
overcome  our  love  of  justice;  that  a  false  sense  of  honor  will  lead  us  on  in 
the  unholy  work  of  human  butchery,  and  that  our  young  men,  by  tens  of 
thousands,  are  yet  to  perish  in  the  "high  places  of  the  field,"  to  gratify  the 
mad  ambition  of  a  weak  and  wicked  Administration.  For  one,  I  will  wash 
my  hand  of  " blood  unprofitably  shed;"  and  will  do  all  in  my  power  to 
avert  the  awful  calamity  which  the  prosecution  of  an  unrighteous  war  may 
bring  upon  the  nation.  If  Jefferson,  in  his  day,  was  compelled  to  say,  in 
view  of  the  existence  of  slavery,  "I  tremble  for  my  country,  when  I  reflect 
that  God  is  just;"  what  must  be  the  apprehension  of  the  Christian  states 
man,  when  he  contemplates  this  great  Republic,  boasting  of  its  freedom, 
exerting  its  powers  to  dismember  a  free  Republic  in  order  to  extend  slavery 
over  a  territory  now  free — a  territory  as  large  as  the  old  thirteen  States  ! 


